not necessarily Preterism

[CadyandZoe]

Thanks brother. About the only good thing I can say about times that are negative is that we tend to become more real and learn deeper truths. Looking forward to seeing more from you, the Lord willing.

Thanks for your encouragement.

 

[covenantee]

Reformed theology "Historicism" is "Preterist"

You believe 70AD in Roman armies destruction fulfilled Daniel's AOD?

Reformation historicism recognizes the apostate papacy as an antichrist who also fulfilled prophecies in Daniel.

That's after 70 AD.

 

[Ritajanice]

Thank you for your words of encouragement.

Do you remember when you helped me understand our spirit..I kept saying it was dead?

You put me straight, we had some great discussions at length if you remember,xx

 

[Truth7t7]

Reformation historicism recognizes the apostate papacy as an antichrist who also fulfilled prophecies in Daniel.

That's after 70 AD.

Thanks, preterism clearly means "Already Taken Place" and reformed theology for one believes Daniel's AOD has been fulfilled (Partial Preterism)

We have ran around this bush several times in the past, I'm well aware of where you and WPM stand

 

[covenantee]

Thanks, preterism clearly means "Already Taken Place" and reformed theology for one believes Daniel's AOD has been fulfilled (Partial Preterism)

We have ran around this bush several times in the past, I'm well aware of where you and WPM stand

Yes, the majority of Reformation historicist commentators (e.g. Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, John Gill, John Wesley) recognize that the AOD of Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15 is the Roman armies of Luke 21:20.

Reformation historicism is alone and unique in recognizing that various prophetic passages in Daniel, Revelation, et al; describe the historical apostate papacy, and its spiritual darkness and oppression which ultimately resulted in the Reformation.

Preterism does not share said recognition.

 

[Truth7t7]

Yes, the majority of Reformation historicist commentators (e.g. Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, John Gill, John Wesley) recognize that the AOD of Daniel 9:27 and Matthew 24:15 is the Roman armies of Luke 21:20.

Reformation historicism is alone and unique in recognizing that various prophetic passages in Daniel, Revelation, et al; describe the historical apostate papacy, and its spiritual darkness and oppression which ultimately resulted in the Reformation.

Preterism does not share said recognition.

Thanks!

Yes historicism believes Daniel's AOD Matthew 24:15 and the Great Tribulation Matthew 24:21 was fulfilled in 70AD

Yes this belief is (Preterist) 100%

 

[covenantee]

Thanks!

Yes historicism believes Daniel's AOD Matthew 24:15 and the Great Tribulation Matthew 24:21 was fulfilled in 70AD

Yes this belief is (Preterist) 100%

Yes, the two share that understanding.

However, preterism considers Nero to have been The Antichrist.

Reformation historicism does not.

Futurism's mythical antichrist was spawned in the antichrist which was identified by the Reformers.

The apostate papacy.

 

[Truth7t7]

Yes, the two share that understanding.

However, preterism considers Nero to have been The Antichrist.

Reformation historicism does not.

Futurism's mythical antichrist was spawned in the antichrist which was identified by the Reformers.

The apostate papacy.

As we have went around the bush several times, my belief (The Man Of Sin/The Beast) is a future individual human man, who will be a Jew/Hebrew

I disagree that this evil future man has been the many popes throughout centuries

 

[covenantee]

As we have went around the bush several times, my belief (The Man Of Sin/The Beast) is a future individual human man, who will be a Jew/Hebrew

I disagree that this evil future man has been the many popes throughout centuries

God raised up the Reformers to liberate His True Church from spiritual darkness and oppression.

I believe Him and them.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Yes you believe Daniel's AOD Matthew 24:15 took place in 70AD "Fulfilled" and you believe in a future second coming of Jesus Christ

You're (Partial Preterist) in your belief of Daniel's AOD alone, you can claim otherwise all you want (Partial Preterist)

Preterism is looked at through the window of Matthew chapter 24 and the Olivet discourse, in relationship to the three items below

(Partial Preterist) believe 1 or 2 of the events below have been fulfilled

(Full Preterist) believe all of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

(Futurist) believe none of the 3 events below have been fulfilled

1.) Matthew 24:15 Daniel's AOD
2.) Matthew 24:21 The Great Tribulation
3.) Matthew 24:30 The Second Coming

Where did you find that list, or did you come up with it yourself? As I've told you, such a list is insufficient, in my opinion. But if you want to count me a Preterist, though I'm not, I'll be happy to enjoy the fellowship of some of the fine people here who are real Preterists, because they are fine Christians.

 

[Truth7t7]

I disagree with the historicist interpretation of the man of sin or the beast being the popes

There were many Christian believers that existed "Before" the reformation, that carried the Christian torch in persecution for biblical truth

 

[Truth7t7]

Where did you find that list, or did you come up with it yourself? As I've told you, such a list is insufficient, in my opinion. But if you want to count me a Preterist, though I'm not, I'll be happy to enjoy the fellowship of some of the fine people here who are real Preterists, because they are fine Christians.

Your belief falls into the category of (Preterist) as explained, feel free to deny this all you want

Nobody stated that preterist aren't fine people or Christians, thats your suggestion trying to cause division

Daniels AOD, The Great Tribulation, and Second Coming of Jesus Christ are future events unfulfilled

Jesus Is The Lord

 

[Timtofly]

Your first question surely is not inspired from my words when I said that John was not a prisoner himself on the Island, or even stranded or in exile as we know the words today. And I never said Patmos was a prison colony or not. Historically though, it was more of a supply logistical stop-over point, a very vital one back them. And there were many military and military supplies I suspect on the Island, moving through to either the East or the East, and South in the Mediterranean Sea.

And yes I agree the term tribulation was also for other things I never intended to list.

I do not know the answer the John's beheading and it relationship with his preaching, do you? I suspect he was getting on the locals' nerves at least to the point of anger.

And I too believe John was on the Island, primarily to preach the gospel and having the freedom to write and sent messages to the fledgling start up 7 churches in Asia Minor across to the mainland.

I do not know how John ate and what food supplies he had on hand. I suspect since it was a major supply point he had no problem acquiring food if he could pay for it.

It might be quite difficult to get his messages out to the 7 churches, the main audience of the Book of Revelation, if he was exiled without any outside contact don't you think.

And then again, he might not have written the Book, 1st hand, and had a revisionist or ghost writer to capture all his words....

You are going to have to provide some tangible proof that this island was a Roman base camp of operations, instead of an island where the Romans dumped off their citizens in exile, according to the historical record. There were also basilicas built on the island, one to remember John as being exiled there. There is nothing that I can find that declares Patmos was a Roman garrison that acted as a supply depot.

John was not held as a prisoner. The historical record states he had to live in a cave, and possibly with others exiled for political reasons.

I am saying, John was not a missionary to the island, but was there in exile. You made it sound like John was called to that Island to start a church. John was exiled there and history called that island a place were dissatisfied citizens of Rome were placed, so they would not cause revolt in their home cities. They were not prisoners, they were exiles. They were expected to die and never be remembered again.

Why would these people be left stranded on a seemingly lifeless island, if the island was also a Roman supply depot? Sounds like they would have ample opportunity to escape the Island, and even survive.

I never said John was beheaded. I said it was exile, because the Romans tried to kill John but failed. God was not ready for John to physically die, not even of old age on the island.

Missionaries don't go to the mission field for the sole purpose of being persecuted or martyred. They go to take the Gospel. So the tribulation was the reason John was on Patmos, not that God told John to go there and preach to those living on the island.

 

[covenantee]

I disagree with the historicist interpretation of the man of sin or the beast being the popes

There were many Christian believers that existed "Before" the reformation, that carried the Christian torch in persecution for biblical truth

Yes, for more than 1,000 years before the Reformation.

Suffering under the ever-increasing apostasy of the papacy during that entire time.

 

[Timtofly]

The view that the Olivet Discourse was largely fulfilled historically in 70 AD is therefore *not* owned by Preterism, which is a school of prophetic interpretation which came centuries after the Early Church Fathers who largely believed in the historical interpretation of the Olivet Discourse.

The preterist view is not modern. It was presented in 1600. The preterist view is not based on any Scripture, but forces the historical events of the first century including 70AD to interpret Scripture. So saying 70AD fulfilled the Olivet Discourse, but not the book of Revelation is misleading. It is the point any Scripture was fulfilled in accordance with the works of Josephus or early church father, or any secular historian, that birthed what is preterism. The early church father's had an opinion. That does not make them correct, nor scriptural.

If the Roman armies are your criteria for an AoD, then Josephus already wrote that the Jews saw that AoD when Pontius Pilate became governor of Jerusalem. It seems misleading to state an AoD in one case that was not documented, and dismiss the one that was documented. An AoD would be recognized by those of Israel according to the OT standards, not a 21st century reader of history.

 

[APAK]

You are going to have to provide some tangible proof that this island was a Roman base camp of operations, instead of an island where the Romans dumped off their citizens in exile, according to the historical record. There were also basilicas built on the island, one to remember John as being exiled there. There is nothing that I can find that declares Patmos was a Roman garrison that acted as a supply depot.

John was not held as a prisoner. The historical record states he had to live in a cave, and possibly with others exiled for political reasons.

I am saying, John was not a missionary to the island, but was there in exile. You made it sound like John was called to that Island to start a church. John was exiled there and history called that island a place were dissatisfied citizens of Rome were placed, so they would not cause revolt in their home cities. They were not prisoners, they were exiles. They were expected to die and never be remembered again.

Why would these people be left stranded on a seemingly lifeless island, if the island was also a Roman supply depot? Sounds like they would have ample opportunity to escape the Island, and even survive.

I never said John was beheaded. I said it was exile, because the Romans tried to kill John but failed. God was not ready for John to physically die, not even of old age on the island.

Missionaries don't go to the mission field for the sole purpose of being persecuted or martyred. They go to take the Gospel. So the tribulation was the reason John was on Patmos, not that God told John to go there and preach to those living on the island.

Not as a base camp, you just said that. And then you have to know when it was used not only as an exile place and also as a logistics traffic point/stop over. So from at least the beginning of the 1st century, and for at least 100 years it was a significant tiny Island for the Roman Empire in moving goods and people in thar portion of the Mediterranean Sea.

And by the end of the 1st century this Island of Patmos was used much as place of exile for criminal or political prisoners.

Why don't you want to research this Island's history for yourself and step out of the legend that John was there in the 90s AD and stayed there for 15 years, with not a scratch on him, and wrote the Book of Revelation then being even over 100 years old if he was about Jesus' age. It would be hard to fathom he was only in his 40s or 50s say and was born around 50 AD...right?

Well as one article says,.... "100 AD: Patmos is densely populated and prospers culturally, becoming an important fortress of the city-state of Miletus in Asia Minor.:"

So by 100 AD it may have been a Base of Operations, as a fortress and John was STILL on it before he was allowed to leave it and go to Ephesus in his 100s in a real sense...he lived a very, very long life, the longest by far of most people and this fact of significance not mentioned in history. Astonishing...

 

[Timtofly]

Preterism did not exist at that time.

Neither did you. You cannot hold the early church fathers, who never knew the term preterist, as your own criteria. And they were not all in agreement, thus no theological position prevailed, thus personal opinion. Just like your opinion of yourself, is that you are not partial preterist. No one has to agree with your opinion about yourself. I would not call you partial preterist. Just pointing out you are not consistent with even the writings of Josephus.

 

[Timtofly]

Alcazar's Vestigatio arcani sensus in Apocalypsi was a commentary on Revelation which attempted to identify The Antichrist as other than the apostate papacy.

His commentary did not deal with Matthew 24.

It was also in response to a person who had died, almost 400 years prior. There were protestors hundreds of years prior to when it became popular to be a protestor.

 

[APAK]

According to Eusebius, who quoted from earlier church writers, the John of the Apocalypse bearing his name was originally known to be NOT the Apostle. Eusebius enumerates a number of reasons why it could not have been the same person, as well as attacking certain aspects of the text. Eusebius argued that while it was, in his opinion, a useful book and could be read in the churches (or at least studied privately), it did not meet the requirements for canonicity and should be excluded. However, by the time the canon was finally assembled, it had been accepted by most of the churches as scripture and so it was added.

And I do not necessarily believe Eusebius, or not. here.

 

[APAK]

From a blog on quora.com one informed person
Dick Harfield
from Sydney, Australia, said this...

"The Book of Revelation, also known as the Apocalypse of John, was written on the idyllic Mediterranean island of Patmos. It was undoubtedly written by a person named John, but the author is most unlikely to have been the apostle John.

New Testament scholars note on literary grounds that the author could not have been the same person who wrote John’s Gospel or the Johannine epistles, and that there is no evidence he was a disciple of Jesus. To avoid confusion with the apostle John, modern scholars now refer to the author as John of Patmos."

And I do agree on literary grounds myself that the John of his Gospel is not the same John of Patmos.

Just read the beginning of the 1st Chapter and you will see the grammar abruptly change and it tense in time, as if more that one person also wrote the Revelation of Jesus....